Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Minister for Communications (Senator Fifield) to questions without notice asked by Senators Ketter, Urquhart and Colbeck today relating to income tax and to the National Broadband Network.

I note that Minister Fifield mentioned the former member for Braddon, Mr Brett Whiteley, in his response to Senator Colbeck's question. Minister Fifield today mentioned the fibre-to-the-node NBN on the west coast as the signature achievement of Mr Brett Whiteley. The 'Minister for Selling the ABC and Rolling Out Copper Fibre' couldn't be more out of touch. This is the same Brett Whiteley who backed in Malcolm Turnbull's plans to service the west coast with satellite. This is the same Brett Whiteley who told people on the west coast that they would just have to put up with inferior communications because he had to at his property. That is what he told the people of the west coast when he went down there. This is the same Brett Whiteley who was dragged kicking and screaming by the people of the west coast to make his paltry election commitment for fibre to the node to the west coast people. This is the same Brett Whiteley who hasn't said a peep about NBN Co's decision not to deliver fibre to the curb to the west coast, despite it being rolled out to millions of homes across the country.

We asked Minister Cormann to explain why Braddon is the fourth-worst-off electorate in the country and why Longman is the 10th-worst-off electorate in the country, but Prime Minister Turnbull's electorate of Wentworth is the best-off electorate. Even former Prime Minister Abbott's electorate of Warringah is the third-best-off electorate under the Liberals' income tax plan. We ask this because it matters to the people of the north-west and west coast of Tasmania and the Caboolture area of South-East Queensland. It matters that they're working harder, that they're working longer, that their jobs are less secure and that they are constantly battling to make ends meet for their families. We ask this because we in the Labor Party believe governments should strive to make our income tax system fairer for all, to lift people up, to improve the incentives to work and to ensure families are meeting their cost-of-living pressures.

Under Labor's income tax plan, every Australian earning less than $125,000 a year will be better off than they would be under Malcolm Turnbull's plan. We believe that people on $180,000, $300,000 or $500,000 a year do not need help as much as do people on $35,000, $65,000 or $95,000 a year. And we know that people on $35,000, $65,000 and $95,000 a year are more likely to spend the money from those tax cuts on goods and services in small businesses in their local communities. In the electorate of Braddon, 39,000 people will be better off by up to $928 a year. Over three-quarters of taxpayers in the electorate of Braddon will get a bigger, better and fairer tax cut under Labor. Most people will be almost twice as well off under Labor's tax proposals, getting hundreds of dollars a year extra, more than what the Liberals are proposing.

What we've seen today is not only unfortunate for the people of Braddon and Longman but deeply disappointing for all Australian workers. Instead of accepting a compromise to split the upcoming income tax bill, to allow the tax cuts due to commence on 1 July this year to pass and then allow the people of Australia to decide the merits of Labor's income tax policy versus the Liberals' during the election, Mr Turnbull and Senator Cormann have snubbed their noses at Australian workers.

Brett Whiteley needs to decide. Does he stand for workers in Braddon getting a tax cut in two weeks time? Does he stand for decent communications infrastructure for the north-west and the west coast? Will he get on the phone to Mr Turnbull and Senator Cormann and demand that they split the income tax bill and allow the tax cuts to pass? Will he go and have a chat with Senator Martin about his comments that, on the NBN, Malcolm Turnbull is treating north-west and west coast Tasmanians as second-class citizens, or will he accept his Prime Minister's dictate? Is Brett Whiteley interested in sticking up for the people of Braddon? I'll come into this place any day and debate Brett Whiteley's political record. He never stood up for the people of Braddon. He pushed an inferior NBN down the necks of people on the west coast. He did not stand up for them when he was in government, and I don't expect that he would do it if he were here again. He never has and he never will. Braddon has never had a worse representative than Brett Whiteley, and this government wants to send him back to Canberra to push second-class decisions onto the people of Braddon. I don't think they will cop it.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Urquhart. I'd just remind you to refer to those in the other chamber by their correct titles.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason we're having this debate today about a by-election in Braddon is solely the dishonesty of the previous Labor member for Braddon in holding on to her seat limpet-like, expending taxpayer dollars and drawing taxpayer dollars, in circumstances where she knew that she was disqualified from sitting in this place. Indeed, there were two senators in this place from my home state of Tasmania, Senator Parry and Senator Lambie, who, when confronted with the High Court decision in October last year, did the honourable thing and resigned, whereas the Labor members of parliament dishonestly clung on to their seats and drew an extra $100,000 of taxpayers' money on their salary. And guess who, out of the 17 MPs representing the state of Tasmania in the federal parliament, spent the most on their communications allowance? One guess! It was the now resigned former Labor member for Braddon, Justine Keay. Why did she hang on for so long and spend so much of taxpayers' money on self-promotion? Because she knew she was in strife. For her to cling on for that extra six months and claim that she somehow needed another High Court decision to tell her that which she already knew in October is disgraceful, and I trust the people of Braddon will judge her and the Australian Labor Party for that gross dishonesty.

But that's the bad side of the situation. The good side is that the people of Braddon will have the opportunity to re-elect a champion who delivered by the bucketload for the people of Braddon—be it on freight equalisation, be it on irrigation, be it on upgrading highways or be it on upgrading an airport that allows us to now be the hub of Antarctic endeavour for the world. Mr Brett Whiteley did fantastic work in the areas of NBN, health, education, tourism, jobs, wages growth and tax relief. We hope he will be re-elected, but even before he's re-elected, if our tax relief is passed in this place, the people of Braddon will get the benefit of tax cuts immediately, as of 1 July. In other words, in 14 days time the people of Braddon will start getting tax relief, meaning more money in their pockets to spend locally, to stimulate their local economy and to create even more jobs.

Let's keep in mind that when Labor was last in office my home state of Tasmania had an unemployment rate of over eight per cent. Today it is below six per cent. That means that thousands of Tasmanians are now in employment—off the social scrap heap of unemployment and fully engaging in society—because of our policies, part and parcel of which were delivered by former member Brett Whiteley. So for the Labor Party to raise the issue of the by-election in Braddon and the issues in that election reminds us that one of the reasons Mr Whiteley lost his seat—having topped the poll, having got most of the primary vote but then being overtaken on preferences—was the fundamentally dishonest scare campaign dubbed 'Mediscare'. Everybody in Braddon now knows that that was a lie; it was false. But they were, understandably, concerned about their health, and we as the Liberal Party did not engage as we should have done in countering that gross dishonesty of that campaign.

Be assured that we are fully alert to those scare campaigns. And a lot of people in Braddon not only feel that they were duped by the dishonesty of the Mediscare campaign but also feel terribly duped by the former Labor member, who is now being recycled as the Labor candidate, for misleading the people of Braddon that she was entitled to nominate and seek election to the federal parliament. Clearly she wasn't. Everybody knew it, and the people of Braddon will have the opportunity, on 28 July, to re-elect Brett Whiteley, the great champion for Braddon. (Time expired)

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all know that this week there is going to be a large debate, probably over most of the week, about the government's proposed income tax cuts. I can tell you as a resident of Queensland that this is somewhere where people are going to be paying very close attention to this debate, including people in the electorate of Longman, just north of Brisbane. Last week it was exposed exactly how unfair the government's proposed tax cuts are when looked at on an electorate-by-electorate basis. To anyone who is familiar with the electorate of Longman, which is an electorate full of hardworking people, there are high levels of disadvantage and many low- and middle-income earners based in that electorate. It wasn't a surprise to see data from the Australia Institute reveal that when you look at all 150 electorates right across the country Longman is in the bottom 10 when you measure how much benefit they will actually get from the government's tax cuts. In short, Longman residents will get only in the low 70s as a percentage of the average benefit for all households around Australia. In other words, for a dollar given to an average household somewhere around Australia, this government proposes to give residents in the electorate of Longman only about 70c.

Of course, it's very different at the other end, and nowhere is it more different than in the Prime Minister's own electorate of Wentworth, in the wealthy suburbs of Sydney. Wentworth is the electorate, across the entire country, that will gain the most from the government's proposed tax cuts. That is because they're so weighted towards high-income earners. Not many people living in Longman are earning more than $200,000. There might be some, but most people in Longman are earning $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 a year—unlike the corporate high-flyers the Prime Minister hangs out with in his electorate of Wentworth, who gain to stand so much from his personal income tax cuts. That is why, for electorates like Longman, the amendments Labor will be proposing and Labor's tax plan offer so much more than what this government is offering.

When you look around the whole of Australia, you'll see that anyone earning under $125,000 a year will be much better off under Labor's plan than under what the government is proposing. That is nowhere more clearly the case than in the electorate of Longman, where 75 per cent of taxpayers will be better off under Labor's plan than under what the government is offering. Again, that's because Labor's plan is very targeted at low- and middle-income earners, the people who actually need a leg up from the tax system, rather than the splurge that is being proposed by this government to provide massive tax cuts to residents in Mr Turnbull's own electorate of Wentworth.

The other question we should be asking ourselves is how the government is planning to pay for these tax cuts that are overwhelmingly going to high-income earners in electorates like the Prime Minister's own. The way they're going to pay for it is by continuing to cut essential services like health, education, training and even pensions in electorates like Longman that really need the support. Looking just at Longman alone, the government's changes to how health is being funded in this country mean that funding from this government to the Caboolture Hospital, a very busy hospital that local residents depend upon, is being cut by $2.9 million—all to help pay for a tax cut for high-income residents in the Prime Minister's own electorate.

With cuts like this, it's no wonder that the LNP has chosen a Mr Trevor Ruthenburg to run as its candidate in the electorate of Longman. Mr Ruthenberg has a record, which we're going to be pointing to over and over again. Mr Ruthenberg served as a member of parliament in the state government headed by Campbell Newman, which became synonymous with vicious cuts to every kind of service that the Queensland state government provides. Just looking at health, Mr Ruthenburg was the state member of parliament for the seat of Kallangur, and voted with Campbell Newman to sack 700 nurses and midwives in local hospitals—thrown out of their jobs, unable to provide services to people on the north side of Brisbane as a result of Trevor Ruthenberg, the now LNP candidate. It is no real surprise, given the Turnbull government's record of cuttings funds from services, that they've settled on a former MP from the Newman government, who has experience and knows how to cut. They've said: 'That's the kind of bloke we need down here in Canberra. That's the kind of bloke who's going to help us keep cutting the health system.' There's no doubt that Susan Lamb is the best choice in Longman. (Time expired)

Jim Molan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will talk about tax relief, but I also note in passing that Senator Watt made some statements about the Caboolture Hospital. I heard figures over the weekend about the Caboolture Hospital. I will go back and work on them very hard, because the Labor lies we've heard over many years in relation to 'Mediscare', which were brought out during the double dissolution election and again—and failed dramatically—in Bennelong, are absolutely not true. I heard detailed figures that we were cutting hospitals in Eden-Monaro, and it can be shown and proven that the funding to each and every one of those hospitals has increased. It was increased this year and will be increased over the next four years.

We're talking here about tax relief. You just can't trust Labor on this. They voted for our full tax relief package in the House but now look like backflipping in the Senate. Average wage earners under Labor will be paying up to $2,000 a year more in tax by 2024. I will get into more detailed figures in relation to all of this, but if Labor fails to support steps 2 and 3 of the government's Personal Income Tax Plan, it will rip $70 billion in extra income tax from working Australians' pay packets over the next 10 years. Labor is trying to cut in half the government's $140 billion Personal Income Tax Plan, which is focused on middle-income earners. Labor is always happy to commit Australian taxpayers to higher expenditure going into the future but is not prepared to commit to giving them responsible tax relief. Labor's extra $70 billion slug on middle-income taxpayers means the value of their higher tax proposals has now reached a staggering $290 billion over the next 10 years, confirming yet again that Labor is the party of higher and higher taxes.

Our tax plan will mean working Australians keep more of their money to help pay their bills, save for their future or spend with local businesses, which in turn helps our economy. As we know, there are three steps, the first of which is tax relief now for middle- and low-income earners. In 2018-19, around 4.4 million Australians will get tax relief of $530 per year and over 10 million taxpayers will get some tax relief. The second stage involves lifting tax brackets to protect Australians from the impact of bracket creep. The third stage ensures that more Australians pay less tax by making personal taxes simpler. As a result of the plan, around 94 per cent of taxpayers are projected to face a tax rate of 32.5 per cent, or less, and that is all.

There are some figures that I think should be brought into this debate. The first one is just the simple fact that Australia's personal income tax system will, and must, remain progressive. Those who have the greatest ability to pay will continue to contribute their fair share. Those who have a lower ability to pay will continue to be taxed less or pay no net tax. Under the government's plan, in 2024-25 a person earning $200,000 would pay around 13 times more tax than a person earning $41,000. In 2015-16, the top 20 per cent of taxpayers paid around 61 per cent of all personal income tax. Under the Personal Income Tax Plan this cohort is projected to continue to contribute a broadly similar share in 2024-25. That is about fairness. In 2015-16, those in the top bracket paid 30.3 per cent of all income tax collected. Under the government's plan, Treasury estimates that those in the top tax bracket will pay around 36 per cent of all personal income tax collected in 2024-25. Under the Personal Income Tax Plan, in 2024 a similar proportion of the population will be in the top marginal tax bracket to that which is currently in that bracket.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The voters of Longman in some weeks' time will have a clear choice between former member Susan Lamb and Labor, who believe in a fair and responsible budgets, in addressing inequality, in evening up the playing field between the rich and the poor and in helping low- and middle-income earners struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table. That's on the one hand. The choice on the other hand is a former member of the Newman state government, which made such vicious cuts to jobs, health and education in Queensland. Queensland is still recovering from the deep cuts that the Newman government was responsible for. In question time today, the minister wanted to throw epithets back at the Labor Party, describing us as socialists, simply because we want hardworking Queenslanders and all Australians to benefit from much better tax cuts and much more quickly. We want to see 63,000 people in Longman get the benefit of the $928 in tax cuts, which is almost double that which this government is preparing to offer. But, of course, there are strings attached with this government. They want to play political games with that by tying it to the unfair elements of their total package. We know that Mr Turnbull is not looking after the state of Queensland. We know that his priority is handing $80 billion to big business and the banks and that the biggest winners from Mr Turnbull's personal-income-tax package are the wealthy electorates in Sydney and Melbourne. We know this from modelling by the respected organisation NATSEM and the Australia Institute.

I just want to go to the top 10 federal electorates that will benefit from this package, according to the Australia Institute. Of course, No. 1, as we've heard in question time today, is Wentworth. The Prime Minister's own electorate is the main beneficiary of this tax plan—surprise, surprise. Then we go in order: North Sydney, Warringah, Sydney, Melbourne Ports, Higgins, Bradfield, Kooyong, Grayndler and Goldstein. Seven of those top 10 beneficiaries of this government's tax plan are Liberal electorates.

It's quite clear that the biggest winners from this tax proposal are the wealthy electorates of Sydney and Melbourne. We can see that all of the top 10 electorates come from those cities. The average household in any one of these top 10 electorates would get at least 50 per cent more than the average Australian household. As I've said, the Prime Minister's own seat of Wentworth is the largest beneficiary. The average increase in disposable income for households in Wentworth is almost twice that of the average household and more than 2½ times that of the average household in the lowest ranked electorate.

When you come to the bottom 10 electorates, those electorates which miss out on the benefit of the tax cuts, we see that Longman is there. It's in the bottom 10, at 77 per cent of the average of the benefit. This analysis comes from NATSEM. It's not Labor Party analysis. It's from a respected economics firm. There are three Queensland electorates on the list: Hinkler, Wide Bay and Longman as well.

According to the polling done by the Australia Institute, voters recognise that the Turnbull tax package fails the fairness test. In contrast, Labor's better, fairer tax plan would give low- and middle-income earners in Longman bigger tax cuts—as I said earlier, in many cases double what's on the table now. Under Labor, a worker on $50,000 a year—which is close to the median income; there are just as many people earning above that as people earning below that—will receive a tax cut of $928 a year, up from what the government's proposing, $530. A couple earning $90,000 and $65,000 respectively will receive a tax cut of $1,855 a year, up from $1,060 from the government. Labor's plan would see 63,000 people in Longman up to $928 better off.

This is on top of our commitment to restoring the billions of dollars in coalition cuts to health and education across the country. In Longman, the coalition cuts to health funding would mean almost $3 million less funding in the Caboolture Hospital, whereas the Shorten Labor government would invest an extra $10 million for a new chemotherapy centre at the Caboolture Hospital. In Longman, the cuts will cost local schools around $17 million over the next two years.

The federal Liberal budget fails the fairness test. The tax package fails the fairness test. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.